Mearls talks about how he hates resistances

[Oni]

I can't believe anyone would suggest actually fireballing a fire elemental.

What you never heard the old adage, fight fire with fire?

 

[Sir Brennen]

I can't believe anyone would suggest actually fireballing a fire elemental.

Though it's not written for 4E, Sean K Reynolds has an article addressing the problems with "total immunities" in D&D. You can read it here. (It also delves into other "absolute" concepts in the game)

Basically it discusses the fact that, in a fantasy world, one could conceive of something powerful enough to overcome even the immunities of a creature, but immunities in the rules don't allow for that. His example is a 3E Fire Giant dropped into the heart of a star takes... no damage. That doesn't quite make sense. Instead, giving them a high fire resistance allows them to live in the environs one would expect for a fire giant, but pure lava or an ancient red dragon's breath weapon could still possibly do some damage to them.

4E seems to have removed several such immunities and replaced them with resistances. Red dragons have fire resistance which scales with level. Total immunities do still exist, though. Efreets, for instance, are still immune to fire.

 

[billd91]

Basically it discusses the fact that, in a fantasy world, one could conceive of something powerful enough to overcome even the immunities of a creature, but immunities in the rules don't allow for that. His example is a 3E Fire Giant dropped into the heart of a star takes... no damage. That doesn't quite make sense. Instead, giving them a high fire resistance allows them to live in the environs one would expect for a fire giant, but pure lava or an ancient red dragon's breath weapon could still possibly do some damage to them.

SKR's analysis is weakened by that example, actually. The fire giant takes no fire damage, though the heart of a star would certainly inflict more than that were it modeled realistically in game terms.
A more appropriate view of fire immunity is that the fire giant is immune to all practical applications of fire the game is likely to produce.

 

[PoeticJustice]

I can't help but think Mearls is making his arguments using assumptions predicated by Arcane Power material. As it is, it's only just possible to create a pyro-cryo-elctro-mancer in 4E. Currently, there's just not enough diversity of powers to make a thematically appropriate choice at every level.

Once Arcane Power comes out, they'll likely be enough, but currently arguments against resistance are sort of moot point, as eventually a wizard will almost certainly diversify.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

...were it modeled realistically in game terms....

I don't think that "modeled realistically" and "in game terms" are mutually inclusive or exclusive. Game design seems to go better when reality influences some flavor as opposed to the mechanics. (In SKR's example, there's no "stellar" damage to equate to what's in the heart of a star. It's just fire. One could invent it, but then along would come creatures immune to stellar damage....)

 

[billd91]

(In SKR's example, there's no "stellar" damage to equate to what's in the heart of a star. It's just fire. One could invent it, but then along would come creatures immune to stellar damage....)

And in a fantasy environment that actually found it necessary to determine what kind or amount of damage was inflicted at the core of a star, I could imagine there would be some pretty boss creatures immune to it.

Until we reach that point, arguing that there is something wrong with immunity to fire because it implies the giant could survive the core of a star is pretty absurd and doesn't help a rational argument very much.

 

[Dausuul]

4E seems to have removed several such immunities and replaced them with resistances. Red dragons have fire resistance which scales with level. Total immunities do still exist, though. Efreets, for instance, are still immune to fire.

Which is as it should be, IMO. I think 4E hit the right balance here. A few monsters should be completely immune to certain damage types. For instance, zombies are immune to poison damage, because there is simply no way that poison could affect a zombie - it doesn't care what you do to its biological processes because it hasn't got any. Likewise, immoliths are immune to fire damage because they are literally made of fire. Trying to burn them is like trying to drown a fish.

However, these are fairly extreme cases. Fire giants are not made of fire, they're made of flesh and blood like everybody else. So there's no intrinsic reason why they ought to be immune to fire. Instead, they just get resistance; they can shrug off ordinary fire, but they still die if you drop them in lava.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The problem to me, in 3E at least (not terribly familiar with 4E) is that there are too many things that have resistance/immunity. It's lazy design - "somethings from a cold area? OK, it gets immunity to cold damage." In Frostburn there are creatures that are described as being afraid of other creatures, but are in fact immune to everything that creature does. Fights between them must be like being gnawed to death by toothless kittens.

Excellent point.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Which is as it should be, IMO. I think 4E hit the right balance here. A few monsters should be completely immune to certain damage types. For instance, zombies are immune to poison damage, because there is simply no way that poison could affect a zombie - it doesn't care what you do to its biological processes because it hasn't got any. Likewise, immoliths are immune to fire damage because they are literally made of fire. Trying to burn them is like trying to drown a fish.

I don't necessarily agree. There could be magical poison. And fire from magical effects tends to imply a control over the element of fire - why shoudn't something made of fire be susceptible to this kind of effects? If you are just wielding a torch, a immolith probably should not care, but if you are manipulating the elements themselves to create fire, maybe the immolith is bothered by it.

Whether this has to translate into damage or something else is another matter.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

...arguing that there is something wrong with immunity to fire because it implies the giant could survive the core of a star is pretty absurd and doesn't help a rational argument very much.

Heyyyyy, thanks for the ad hominem attack! Been a while. I was feeling left out.

Let's go back to the core of this particular subtopic. D&D has five basic damage types as of 3E. There are a few more in 4E. But that's it. Those are the damage types. So the discussion as it takes place is valid because under the example (fire giant in the heart of the star) you have to pick what type of damage it is*. Assuming you pick "fire", the fire giant has immunity, and it takes no damage.

*Unless it does untyped damage. One of the interesting points brought out in this whole discussion is the notion that everything in D&D could just do untyped damage.